Some speculation about the origins of the Quranist movement and why it might be misguided

[LuisDantas]

Some Christians profess to have faith in God but not in religion, apparently because they see religion as a human activity and therefore fallible and corruptible, while faith in God they expect to be consistently trustworthy.

Perhaps for the same reasons, there are also Christians who talk about trusting the Bible over "the words of men".

As many Muslims no doubt noticed, that is also one significant difference between the Qur'an and the Bible (and most if not all other sacred scriptures): Muslim belief includes that of divine assurance that the (Arabic) text of the Qur'an can not and will not ever be corrupted.

I think it is fair to say that such assurance does not cover the Ahadith, nor the Sirat, and that such lack of absolute certainty is one of two major causes of conflict and inner division among Muslims; there is simply no agreement on which other texts, if any, to follow besides the Qur'an, nor on how they should be interpreted.

The other major cause is that, matters of assurance aside, the Qur'an is simply not enough and at least arguably could not ever be enough. No matter how sublime and pure its message might be, people live in a world where there is a need to make concrete actions and decisions.

For good or worse no matter how exalted its origin and contents may conceivably be, the Qur'an does require interpretation. Or, at the very least, it is not a magical book that may be opened to consistently find clear, unambiguous answers to whichever religious, ethical or behavioral doubts one might have. Nothing makes that fact more clear than the plain lack of agreement on all sorts of matters among Muslims.

It must be frustrating in the extreme for so many Muslims to sincerely seek honest guidance and assurance and find themselves trampling over each other's understandings. So frustrating, it seems to me, that it is very difficult to not at least feel the temptation of concluding that the most extreme disagreements are not the result of a lack of sincerity. There is a lot of evidence that most Muslims consider it very rude to put in doubt whether other people who claim to be Muslims truly are. Muslims seem to find it indelicate even to suggest that their converts were not originally Muslims from birth, going all the way to calling their converts "reverts" even if they had never once claimed to be Muslims before conversion.

Yet Muslims are humans and they feel all too human frustration when faced with the enormous challenges of dealing with disagreements among people. Wanting people to find consensus and cooperation is simply not enough to make it so. And while most Muslims find it natural to seek guidance from their leaders and submit to their decisions, sometimes it is reasonable to assume that sometimes that is simply not a very easy thing to do in good conscience. Humans, too, are fallible and may easily fail to cooperate with the will of God. Even if they are religious authorities. Hence the appeal of bypassing human authorities and taking refuge, so to speak, in the presumably inerrant, incorruptible Qur'an.

Yet the need for interpretation can not truly be bypassed, only over-ridden by a perhaps entirely sincere desire to avoid mistakes and an equally sincere hope that the Qur'an and the divine grace will show the way for the sincere believer.

To be honest, I don't think that can even possibly work, even as I sympathise with the need to find some reliable way of dealing with the uncertainties that motivate such a choice. At the end of the day, the need for interpretation remains and can't really be bypassed. And I would argue that if God created people with the ability to make judgements and interpretations, it can't very well be wrong to actually use it.

Then again, I happen to think that the value of a religion is in the good will and human effort of its adherents, not in its scriptures, so I suppose one can honestly say that I will never understand Islam. I may even agree.

 

[Lyndon]

Since you yourself admit you have never understood Islam, why do you feel so compelled to write about it so much??

 

[LuisDantas]

Since you yourself admit you have never understood Islam, why do you feel so compelled to write about it so much??

Is that even a serious question?

Are you attempting to discourage me from exposing my views and giving people the chance to give me reason to reconsider?

I don't think you have thought that quite through.



Edited to add: You know, one would expect people to be allowed to somewhat judge those who claim that we are doomed to eternal hellfire simply because we do not believe. Fair retribution and all that. To say nothing of self-defense and refusing to be targeted by libel and slander.



In any case, let me give you direct answers to your questions.

Since you yourself admit you have never understood Islam,

More explicitly, I do not quite understand why so many people find it appealing.

I have dedicated considerable effort at understanding its general characteristics, though, and I am not about to be dissuated by people who value superstition over research and understanding.

why do you feel so compelled to write about it so much??

The main reason is because it is such an unapologizing theocentrism. I find that as inadequate as I find it dangerous for any religion. I have seen enough of the dangers of theocentrism first hand from Christians to find it necessary to challenge it in Islam as well.

To your considerable inconvenience, apparently, but so are our deals.

 

[Kirran]

I think it is important what you raise here, that there is no way of reading or interpreting scripture which does not include some interpretative methodology.

Did you read that book yet?

 

[LuisDantas]

@Kirran : Not trying to be funny, but I have only just started it... although I found your interpretation of it somewhat more interesting!

 

[Kirran]

@Kirran : Not trying to be funny, but I have only just started it... although I found your interpretation of it somewhat more interesting!

No worries, just wondering.

What, my two-and-a-half-line interpretation?

 

[LuisDantas]

No worries, just wondering.

What, my two-and-a-half-line interpretation?

Indeed. The value of actually knowing something about the person one is addressing is not to be neglected.

Nor is that of the sublime grace of daring to express things as we understand them.

 

[Laika]

As many Muslims no doubt noticed, that is also one significant difference between the Qur'an and the Bible (and most if not all other sacred scriptures): Muslim belief includes that of divine assurance that the (Arabic) text of the Qur'an can not and will not ever be corrupted.

As limited as my understanding is, this is simply wrong and is a mis-representation of Islamic Tradition, which includes the "Tafsir" or the "to explain, to expound, to disclose". As wikipedia puts it; "In Islamic contexts, it is defined as understanding and uncovering the Will of Allah which has been conveyed by the Qur'anic text, by means of the Arabic language and one’s own knowledge.[2] This definition includes;

• determining the style of the text and its eloquence
• defining unknown or otherwise less used words
• the clarification of the meanings of verses
• extraction of laws and rulings
• explaining the underlying thoughts in metaphors and figurative speech
• reconciling verses that seem contradictory
• finding out the underlying reasons for parables"

the article further elaborates on the methods by which lists "15 fields that must be mastered before one can authoritatively interpret the Quran" though there is variation based on the tradition of islam.

Spoiler: The 15 Fields

1. Classical Arabic: Is how one learns the meaning of each word. Mujahid ibn Jabr said, “It is not permissible for one who holds faith in Allah and the Day of Judgment to speak on the Quran without learning classical Arabic.” In this respect, it should be known that classical Arabic must be mastered in its entirety because one word may have various meanings; a person may only know two or three of them whereas the meaning of that word in the Quran may be altogether different.
2. Arabic Philology: Is important because any change in the diacritical marks affects the meaning, and understanding the diacritical marks depends on the science of Arabic philology.
3. Arabic morphology: is important because changes in the configuration of verb and noun forms change the meaning. Ibn Faris said, “A person who misses out on Arabic morphology has missed out on a lot.”
4. Al-Ishtiqaaq: should be learned because sometimes one word derives from two root words, the meaning of each root word being different. This is the science of etymology which explains the reciprocal relation and radical composition between the root and derived word. For example, masih derives from the root word masah which means “to feel something and to touch something with a wet hand,” but also derives from the root word masaahat which means “to measure.”
5. Ilm-ul-Ma’ani: is the science by which one figures the syntax through the meaning of a sentence.
6. Ilm-ul-Bayaan: is the science by which one learns the similes, metaphors, metonymies, zuhoor (evident meanings) and khafa (hidden meanings) of the Arabic language.
7. Ilm-ul-Badi’: The science by which one learns to interpret sentences which reveal the beauty and eloquence of the spoken and written word. The above-mentioned three sciences are categorized as Ilm-ul-Balagha (science of rhetoric). It is one of the most important sciences to a mufassir because he is able to reveal the miraculous nature of the Quran through these three sciences.
8. Ilm-ul-Qira'at: Dialecticisms of the different readings of the Quran. This science is important because one qira'at (reading) of the Quran may differ in meaning from another, and one learns to favor one reading over another based on the difference in the meanings.
9. Ilm-ul-Aqaa’id: is important because we cannot attribute the literal meaning of some ayaat to Allah. In this case, one will be required to interpret the ayah as in ‘the hand of Allah is over their hand’.
10. Usul-ul-Fiqh: are the principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. It is important to master this field so one understands the methodology of legal derivation and interpretation.
11. Asbaab-ul-Nuzul: is the field by which one learns the circumstances in which an ayah is revealed. It is important because the meaning of the ayah is more clearly understood once the circumstances in which it was revealed are known. Sometimes, the meaning of an ayah is wholly dependent on its historical background.
12. Ilm-ul-Naskh: is knowledge of the abrogated ayaat. This field is important because abrogated rulings must be separated from the applied rulings.
13. Fiqh: Jurisprudence. This field is important because one cannot gain an overview of any issue until he has understood its particulars.
14. Ilm-ul-Hadith: is knowledge of the ahadith which explain mujmal (general) ayaat.
15. Ilm Laduuni: Last but not least is the endowed knowledge which Allah grants to his closest servants. They are the servants indicated in the hadith: "Allah will grant one who acts upon whatever he knows from a knowledge he never knew."

link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafsir

This is also true of the Hadiths. Muslim scholars did make efforts to ascertian the reliability of the hadiths based on the degree of association with Muhammad. Whilst there methods may not be comparable to historical research today, it still represents an admission of the capacity for corruption of the hadith as a record of the life of Muhammad. [I had to check but it's called "Sanad" or "isnad" in that it tries to find support for the stories by tracing their lineage, whereas "matn" concerns the actual wording of the hadiths.]

 

[LuisDantas]

@Laika : I honestly do not understand what you are disagreeing with.

I get the feeling that you are not understanding my post at all.

 

[Laika]

@Laika : I honestly do not understand what you are disagreeing with.

I get the feeling that you are not understanding my post at all.

you are arguing that Muslims belief the Quran cannot "cannot and will not ever be corrupted" when in fact Muslims have systems of rules to ensure that an "authentic" interpretation of the Quran can be made and therefore means to deal with the problems of interpretation/"corruption" of the text.

i.e. you are criticising Islam as a religion on the basis of a mis-interpretation of the religious tradition.

 

[LuisDantas]

you are arguing that Muslims belief the Quran cannot "cannot and will not ever be corrupted" when in fact Muslims have systems of rules to ensure that an "authentic" interpretation of the Quran and therefore means to deal with the problems of interpretation/"corruption" of the text.

i.e. you are criticising Islam as a religion on the basis of a mis-interpretation of the religious tradition.

So you did not understand me at all, indeed. At least at first.

You are essentially repeating in more detail what I said already, all the while accusing me of misrepresentation.

 

[LuisDantas]

you are arguing that Muslims belief the Quran cannot "cannot and will not ever be corrupted" when in fact Muslims have systems of rules to ensure that an "authentic" interpretation of the Quran can be made and therefore means to deal with the problems of interpretation/"corruption" of the text.

Why, that is basically self-evident. Muslims have a major interpretation challenge, as could only be expected.

Nevertheless, I have been assured quite consistently that the Qur'an (the original, Arabic text) is indeed protected from corruption by divine promise.

Are you denying that, perhaps?

i.e. you are criticising Islam as a religion on the basis of a mis-interpretation of the religious tradition.

I am actually not. Hopefully you now understand why.

 

[Laika]

So you did not understanding me at all, indeed. At least at first.

A second interpretation of the OP is a more general argument against the validity of revelation as a source for religious belief. Am I right in thinking this?

I assumed that as you were focusing on Islam, you were focusing on the specific problems of interpretation the Quran as a text.

 

[LuisDantas]

A second interpretation of the OP is a more general argument against the validity of revelation as a source for religious belief. Am I right in thinking this?

You are not wrong in that.

I assumed that as you were focusing on Islam, you were focusing on the specific problems of interpretation the Quran as a text.

That, too, is correct.

 

[Laika]

Why, that is basically self-evident. Muslims have a major interpretation challenge, as could only be expected.

Nevertheless, I have been assured quite consistently that the Qur'an (the original, Arabic text) is indeed protected from corruption by divine promise.

Are you denying that, perhaps?

My approach is that it is extremely unlikely that it is an "either-or" distinction (as I would consider this unpractical for a belief system). It will not be a question of representing it as solely divine or solely human, but will be a combination of both. it creates too many philosophical problems so it becomes a question of degrees and compromise. (more liberal interpretations will give greater scope for individual interpreation than orthodox ones- but both will include recognition of the necessity of a set of "core" beliefs that define the religion). The Quran may well be the source of the religion but that does not mean they deny that it can be interpreted by human beings or corrupted by "chinese whispers" of passing down oral and scriptural traditions. The hadith is a good example of that.

I am not a muslim, so I am more than welcome to be corrected on this.

 

[LuisDantas]

My approach is that it is extremely unlikely that it is an "either-or" distinction (as I would consider this unpractical for a belief system). It will not be a question of representing it as solely divine or solely human, but will be a combination of both. it creates too many philosophical problems so it becomes a question of degrees and compromise. (more liberal interpretations will give greater scope for individual interpreation than orthodox ones- but both will include recognition of the necessity of a set of "core" beliefs that define the religion). The Quran may well be the source of the religion but that does not mean they deny that it can be interpreted by human beings or corrupted by "chinese whispers" of passing down oral and scriptural traditions. The hadith is a good example of that.

I am not a muslim, so I am more than welcome to be corrected on this.

I, too, would welcome some Muslim input on this.

 

[Laika]

I, too, would welcome some Muslim input on this.

yeah. I think it be wise to start a thread in the DIR on the scope and methods for interpreting the Quran and to see what they say.

I perhaps should have been clearer in my first reply. the problem is that there are often "nuances" to belief systems that you only discover after many years in them which are not obvious to the uninitiated. first appearances are often decievingly simply. my experience is that there is a constant tensions between "core" beliefs which are uncharging and more "perpherial" ones that are subject to huge variations. background knowledge of a belief systems tradition and history shows what beliefs fit where as there are ussually alot of "schisms", sects, factions, etc as each generation inherits (and therefore re-interpets) a belief system, often under very different conditions from which it was concieved. beliefs have a tendency to evolve and how people define the scope and method for interpretation is part of that story. although often, many of the controversies are re-occuring due to the need for logical coherence. This evolution would happen automatically in oral traditions but the problems of interpretation is something peculiar to written and scriptural belief systems as the original texts get passed down. I was reading the same process in Islam as I have seen elsewhere, but of course, it may not be the case.

I am none the wiser as to whether this applies to Islam. so we are both in the same boat on this.

 

[LuisDantas]

My approach is that it is extremely unlikely that it is an "either-or" distinction (as I would consider this unpractical for a belief system). It will not be a question of representing it as solely divine or solely human, but will be a combination of both. it creates too many philosophical problems so it becomes a question of degrees and compromise. (more liberal interpretations will give greater scope for individual interpreation than orthodox ones- but both will include recognition of the necessity of a set of "core" beliefs that define the religion).

That sounds reasonable enough, and not too far away from what happens in practice with Christianity IMO.

Once one accepts the premise that there is divinely-inspired or divinely-revealed scripture, this is probably the way to go.

However, I have reason to wonder if it is even possible in Islam, mainly because there is some indication that many Muslims find it somewhat odd that people might even find a less rigorous, less fundamentalist understanding of Islam in some sense desirable.

While that attitude does come as something of a cultural shock for those such as me that are used to see many Christians freely admit that there is such a thing as paying too much attention to the Bible, it does not seen to be atypical or unrepresentative of Islam. I am willing to be proven wrong... but so far proper support from Muslim sources has eluded me. After years of effort to find it.

The Quran may well be the source of the religion but that does not mean they deny that it can be interpreted by human beings or corrupted by "chinese whispers" of passing down oral and scriptural traditions. The hadith is a good example of that.

Far from denying it, they seem to spend a lot of their time and effort emphasizing that it happens, even while taking solace in their certainty that the Qur'an is nonetheless pure, perfect, unchanging, incorruptible and perhaps even complete in its original Arabic form (which is often called the only true Quran, while the translations to other languages are mere interpretations).

Of course, even today the average Muslim should not be assumed to be literate, let alone literate in Arabic, so there is a practical need for translators and religious scholars to intermediate the understanding of the Qur'an. Relatively few Muslims can directly verify the text and interpret it without help. But the assumption, if not the actual article of faith, is that any Muslims who do read the Qur'an with a pure heart will be by necessity reassured of its truth and worth. They may easily need further orientation or interpretation for specifics, but never at the expense of the Qur'an proper.

Far as I can tell, there is not such a thing as a Muslim feeling that the Qur'an may be in some circunstance be taken too seriously for the good of someone's religious practice. Such an attitude would be the mark not of a moderate Muslim, but rather of a non-Muslim, perhaps even of a not very diplomatical non-Muslim.

 

[LuisDantas]

yeah. I think it be wise to start a thread in the DIR on the scope and methods for interpreting the Quran and to see what they say.

I would rather not, although I expect that most Muslims might well prefer that.

A DIR thread would forbid me from asking more pointed questions, as well as debate even between Muslims. That is far too passive for true clarification, IMO.

I perhaps should have been clearer in my first reply. the problem is that there are often "nuances" to belief systems that you only discover after many years in them which are not obvious to the uninitiated. first appearances are often decievingly simply. my experience is that there is a constant tensions between "core" beliefs which are uncharging and more "perpherial" ones that are subject to huge variations. background knowledge of a belief systems tradition and history shows what beliefs fit where as there are ussually alot of "schisms", sects, factions, etc as each generation inherits (and therefore re-interpets) a belief system, often under very different conditions from which it was concieved. beliefs have a tendency to evolve and how people define the scope and method for interpretation is part of that story. although often, many of the controversies are re-occuring due to the need for logical coherence. This evolution would happen automatically in oral traditions but the problems of interpretation is something peculiar to written and scriptural belief systems as the original texts get passed down. I was reading the same process in Islam as I have seen elsewhere, but of course, it may not be the case.

I am none the wiser as to whether this applies to Islam. so we are both in the same boat on this.

Here is hoping to learn some more about this.

 

[Laika]

That sounds reasonable enough, and not too far away from what happens in practice with Christianity IMO.

Once one accepts the premise that there is divinely-inspired or divinely-revealed scripture, this is probably the way to go.

However, I have reason to wonder if it is even possible in Islam, mainly because there is some indication that many Muslims find it somewhat odd that people might even find a less rigorous, less fundamentalist understanding of Islam in some sense desirable.

While that attitude does come as something of a cultural shock for those such as me that are used to see many Christians freely admit that there is such a thing as paying too much attention to the Bible, it does not seen to be atypical or unrepresentative of Islam. I am willing to be proven wrong... but so far proper support from Muslim sources has eluded me. After years of effort to find it.

ok. now I get what you were asking. yes, that can be a source of fanaticism. the perfectionism of finding the "correct" beliefs is often very destructive.

Far from denying it, they seem to spend a lot of their time and effort emphasizing that it happens, even while taking solace in their certainty that the Qur'an is nonetheless pure, perfect, unchanging, incorruptible and perhaps even complete in its original Arabic form (which is often called the only true Quran, while the translations to other languages are mere interpretations).

Of course, even today the average Muslim should not be assumed to be literate, let alone literate in Arabic, so there is a practical need for translators and religious scholars to intermediate the understanding of the Qur'an. Relatively few Muslims can directly verify the text and interpret it without help. But the assumption, if not the actual article of faith, is that any Muslims who do read the Qur'an with a pure heart will be by necessity reassured of its truth and worth. They may easily need further orientation or interpretation for specifics, but never at the expense of the Qur'an proper.

Far as I can tell, there is not such a thing as a Muslim feeling that the Qur'an may be in some circunstance be taken too seriously for the good of someone's religious practice. Such an attitude would be the mark not of a moderate Muslim, but rather of a non-Muslim, perhaps even of a not very diplomatical non-Muslim.

The insistence of literalism and ideological certianity is often a trait of the newly converted. I would be surprised if an Islamic Scholar has not suggested that this could be an issue.

I would rather not, although I expect that most Muslims might well prefer that.

A DIR thread would however forbid me from asking more pointed questions, as well as debate between Muslims. That is far too passive for true clarification, IMO.

Give them the benifit of the doubt. it's been a hard lesson, but I have found that you do need some prior knowledge to criticise others beliefs. people tend to hear the same criticism over and over again when often its based on mis-understandings. it may be something they have heard before.

Here is hoping to learn some more about this.

it is not directly relevant to this thread, but the problem of interpretation is one that occurs in Communism and is where my experience comes from. I'll keep it short and sweet.

Spoiler

Whilst it isn't a religion, it shares many of the same problems of one. texts by key figures (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, etc) because eqivilent to "holy texts" with which the converted must be familar. Lenin's State and Revolution set out the blueprint of what a "worker's state" would look like. the text itself quotes extensively from Marx and Engels to establish that this is the "authenticly" marxist position (much the same way Christians quote the bible).

it isn't. it includes a number of innovations which means Lenin and Marx can be treated as seperate philosophers within the same tradition. these innovations can be justified because they are much more logically coherent than many of Marx's original writings. The way to read marxist texts is reliant on understanding the system of logic behind it, known as "dialectical materialism". this system for interpreting Marxism was developed only after Marx died (and is peculiar to Russian Marxism) and is itself a product of a much larger break between european and russian Marxist schools of thought [like protestant and catholic christianity]. whilst you can produce strongly divergent or even contraditing interpretations using this system, they are both somewhat valid within the system of beliefs as a whole. the belief isn't staticas crucailly it is more about "what works" and trial and error. this defines the legitimate scope of interpretation of key texts and ideas. people who fall outside of it can be considered "revisionist" because they are revising away key fundamentals of the belief system. people often accuse each other of not being "marxist enough" even when they have both valid interpreations. [As a sketch by monty python about the "Judean People's Front" made out, Marxism has notorious tendencies towards infighting, factions and splits. the western world is littered with tiny cults each insisting they and only they are the "true" marxists.]

Even with this in mind there are are at least two ways to reading of State and Revolution; one is democratic and humane, the other is bureaucratic and dictatorial. the trick is to grasp that these are however not mutually exclusive. it is therefore a question of "degrees" as to which one is appropriate, and that is judged by which interpretation is most practical or advantageous. lenin didn't tie his hand by adhereing to "principle"- practical considerations came first.

a little known fact is the Marx supported Free Trade, as he thought it would destroy capitalism faster. Consequently, there is a "right-wing" branch of marxism which is comfortable using the free market under communist party rule. There were debates over this in the 1920's in Russia, in which a communist party leader (Bukharin) told the peasents to "enrich themselves" to advance the cause of socialism [much to the great embrassment of everyone concerned]. the same trend re-emerged in 1980's China and the market reforms there are consistent with a very "capitalist" and "unorthodox" interpretation of Marxism, but they still "fit".

of course, you only get to know how much diversity there is after a while "in the belief system". there isn't a single "correct" interpretation of marxism but many. it is all about "what works". During the Cultural Revolution in China, the students in the Red Guards were armed and dangerous and sent out from the universities out to enforce the "correct" interpretation of Mao's "little red book". it didn't go well. one particular problem was that different groups reached different conclusions as to what the "correct" interpretation of the quotes were. this was often the same quote. they vied with each other to be more "marxist" then each other and ended up having rows amongst themselves, accusing each other of not being authentically marxist enough and being "revisionist" trying to overthrow chairman mao and restore capitalism. they "solved" it by having pitch street battles between the factions, in one case where there was an armaments factory nearby, with tanks and artillery. top marks for ingenuity but they were all technically on the same side, with the same banner, the same book, and the same leader and were still trying to kill each other over the nuances of interpretation.

As I said, "it's not a religion". it's adherents just behave like its one.

 

[Laika]

Here is hoping to learn some more about this.

(errr... just to finish) many of the same problems of interpretation come up in other contexts. it's not unique to religion, but affects communities with shared beliefs. This also appears be true of followers of Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" and Libertarianism. the fact it is shared mean there is a tension between those core beliefs which "make" the belief system distinct and is the basis of the identity of the group, and the need to re-intrepret and innovate it in new conditions so it evolves. One part is fixed whilst another is changing- and you get conflicts between groups trying to be more inovative and those trying to remain true to it's core tenants and conserve it.